Posted by Grallon on March 27, 2000 at 09:40:30:
In Reply to: heh (well started as a heh, turned into a treatise of some sort) posted by Pikel on March 27, 2000 at 09:14:00:
> Theres seems to be a serious conceptual gap somewhere in here, Sylvan are anti-civilization, that means they don't like it, or those who support it.
Is it just me, or is there a general tendancy in the past year or so to increasingly generalize what is considered "enemy" in order to fit more people into the "to be killed" category.
1)Ragers are anti-mage
but, if you are a warrior and not a rager, you must love magic, so must die. This nolonger requires proof of magic use.
2)sylvan are anti-defiler/civilization
but, if you are not sylvan, you must love civilization, so must die. This requires nolonger requres proof of actually defiling.
3) Arbies are anti-criminal, but at least we have imms constantly looking over our shoulders to at least make sure there is some semblance of proof before flagging a criminal
4)Masters seem to be getting better...
Started out as pro magic
then turned anti-nature
then anyone who was not pro magic was pro-nature, and must die
Now they are becoming a bit more pacifistic, thanks in large part to manshoon.
Empire is empire.
Scarab is kill everyone you have a chance of killing
Maran is kill everyone with red aura.
We need more troup/dawn type cabals.